Microsoft on Wednesday filed court papers offering to change its behaviour in a move that could delay the final ruling in the anti-monopoly case brought against it by the United States government.
It will also argue that the break-up of the company, as proposed by the Department of Justice and 17 US states, goes far beyond the remit of the trial and that a new mini-trial is therefore warranted.
If the judge agrees, the final decision on Microsoft’s fate could be pushed back several months.
Immediately after the government presented its break-up proposals two weeks ago, Microsoft lawyers said they would ask the judge for a mini-trial because of the scope of the proposals.
A Microsoft representative said: “The government has essentially brought a whole new case under the guise of remedy proposals that should not be allowed to stand.”
The company has rejected any attempt to split its Office applications software from its Windows operating system.
One adviser said that “not a word” was said about Office or the server market during the two-year trial.
However, the Department of Justice has argued that Microsoft attempted to use its stranglehold on the operating system market to force its way into other markets. In its submission to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, the government said only drastic restructuring could end this behaviour.
Sources said yesterday that Microsoft’s own proposals – such as promising not to discriminate between developers – would fall short of the government’s suggestions and would be unlikely to satisfy the Department of Justice.
In meetings held after Judge Jackson found Microsoft guilty of breaking anti- trust laws, the company’s lawyers said they could not agree to a timetable for the trial until they knew the scope of the government’s proposals.
Judge Jackson’s comments that this was a “fair” demand led Microsoft to believe that he will agree to further hearings, although Judge Jackson has indicated a desire to rule on the case as quickly as possible.
Microsoft has already said that it will appeal against his earlier ruling once he has made a final ruling.
ENDS